Jesus could talk to God. Jesus healed the sick. Jesus wanted us to be well.

Why didn’t he teach us to wash our hands frequently? Whey didn’t he teach us about microbes?

A. He didn’t know about them.

B. He didn’t think it was important.

C. Cleanliness was already covered by the Torah.

D. Microbes can’t hurt us if we have faith.

E. God didn’t send him to teach science classes.

F. God wanted Christian missionaries to carry deadly microbes to the New World to help stamp out natives.

G. Jesus is a myth.

H. There was no running water.

I. Soap wasn’t readily available.

You guys come up with some of the most bizarre reasons for disbelief.

You’ll believe anything you tell yourself, aslong as you’re not under a religious brand-name.

A small bowl of water would have been sufficient. Soap happens to be thousands of years older than the Jesus myth by the way. If it wasn’t somehow available, Jesus could have easily provided everyone he met with a simple recipe to make it. I would have personally preferred to hear something about penicillin though.

The denial to openly discuss the mythicist position and the refusal for even mainstream academia to properly research it honestly & allow it to be taken seriously pretty much sums up the last 2,000 years.

With all due respect, this kind of statement could be said by any scientist, scholar or student who has published research not accepted by the wider academic community. In fact, that has been exactly my understanding of the situation. Most scholars think that Jesus mythicists are so inept at providing solid evidence of their position that they don’t waste their time trying to refute the theories….you know, kind of how evolutionists feel about creationists.

He, Doherty, is basically saying that every biblical scholar other than the few serious mythicists out there are being intellectually dishonest and sloppy with their work…sounds exceptionally presumptuous and almost paranoid.

Signature

“If you desire to be good, begin by believing that you are wicked.” -Epictetus

I saw nothing demonstrating knowledge of the historicity of Jesus or any of the other stuff you claim there.

Well, I guess I’ll have to spell it out for you. II Cor. 5:16: “Hoste hemeis apo tou nun oudena oidamen kata sarka; ei kai egnokamen data sarka Christon, alla nun ouketi ginoskomen.” “Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him thus no longer.”

Paul is saying that he, along with others (“we”), knew the physical Jesus. Paul probably encountered him in Jerusalem at Passover, before Jesus was crucified. As a Pharisee, Paul would have been interested in Jesus. “According to the flesh” means “physically.” He does not want to deal with people on a physical basis, even with the historical Jesus, but instead wants to relate to others on a spiritual basis. That’s what he is saying.

The denial to openly discuss the mythicist position and the refusal for even mainstream academia to properly research it honestly & allow it to be taken seriously pretty much sums up the last 2,000 years.

With all due respect, this kind of statement could be said by any scientist, scholar or student who has published research not accepted by the wider academic community. In fact, that has been exactly my understanding of the situation. Most scholars think that Jesus mythicists are so inept at providing solid evidence of their position that they don’t waste their time trying to refute the theories….you know, kind of how evolutionists feel about creationists.

He, Doherty, is basically saying that every biblical scholar other than the few serious mythicists out there are being intellectually dishonest and sloppy with their work…sounds exceptionally presumptuous and almost paranoid.

Your comment represents an ignorance on the history of the mythicist position, the mountain of evidence compiled and the fact that academia not only has NOT refuted it, but it never took the time to study it seriously in the first place - largely because of the same arrogant attitude you display here. This ignorance is probably also due to the fact that many major universities began as religious institutions, such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton & many more. Plus, let’s not forget about the donations from religious institutions over the years. And if that weren’t enough, the history of scholarly timidity in the face of Bibliolatry caused many great scholars to lose their occupations and, thus, their research. Hence, we have the huge academic gap between theologians and historians today. There’s a monumental vacuum, and the mythicist position can fill that void.

“inept” ?

From where I stand, the “inept” would certainly be those who rigidly adhere to a historical biblical Jesus based on no valid evidence whatsoever after 2,000 years, all the investigations & loads of money spent on them - what do they really have to show for it? How many more thousands of years do you need? I think the believers and the evemerists have had their shot - and they’ve utterly failed in THEIR ineptitude.

Now, it’s time for the mythicists. Their work has been suppressed, censored, destroyed and ridiculed by unscientific ignoramuses. Up until the last few decades, mythicists were not allowed to publicly oppose the church - as it would certainly cost them their jobs and possibly their lives.

clayforHim648, your comment is extremely insulting to all Freethinkers who have actually studied the mythicist position.

Paul never met Jesus “in the flesh.” I don’t need you to “spell it out” for me as it’s just not there like you’d prefer to believe. Paul is *NOT* saying that he knew the physical Jesus…

2 Corinthians 5:16 (RSV) “From now on, therefore, we regard no one from a human point of view; even though we once regarded Christ from a human point of view, we regard him thus no longer.”

Let’s take your RSV (which is inferior here, but what the heck). When did Paul regard Christ from a human point of view? What does that mean to you? If his first encounter with Christ was a “heavenly vision,” how could he have ever regarded him from a human point of view? How could ANYONE have ever regarded him from a human point of view if he never existed historically?

First of all, present to me a scholarly consensus that agrees with you that Paul actually met Jesus while he was alive - I’m not aware of any objective scholars even attempting to make that argument. Second, the Pauline epistles are known to be heavily interpolated and redacted. Thirdly, some scholars have suggested that they’re not even genuine to Paul. Fourth, the phrase “according to the flesh” occurs several other times in the NT – if we accept that it means “was a human being,” it seems to be a comment directed at the Docetic sect of the Gnostics. It’s quite possible that this phrase – which sounds like the writer is protesting too much – was interpolated in order to combat Docetism, which flourished during the second century. If Jesus Christ was a known historical figure, why would anyone have to repeat over and over again that he was “born according to the flesh?” Here’s one example where methinks he doth protest too much:

Rom 1:3 “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;”

Again, if Jesus was a known historical figure, why would Paul need to emphasize that he was “made of the seed of David according to the flesh?” And, what valid evidence demonstrates King David was a historical figure? This really sounds like the author is combating Docetism, which would mean it was interpolated sometime during the second century, when the claim was that Jesus had only existed as a “phantom,” not in the flesh.

BC “I don’t think Jesus is far fetched unless you just simply choose to ignore facts and have your own form of ignorance.”

So, Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin, walked on water, healed the blind & sick, raised the dead, was crucified on a cross and resurrected 3 days later, soon to return?

There are no facts being ignored concerning Jesus - whether biblical or just historical - it’s simply a giant leap of faith. If there were valid evidence substantiating the claims, FAITH would not be the main requirement. Claiming Jesus existed for another 2,000 years will never make it true.

“Some sort not “none-Jesus” believing religion. Or at least, just another one.”

That’s just absurd - sounds like somebody is mad because more & more aren’t buying into the Jesus nonsense.

Yeah, and the Jews were destroying the german economy so bad, that everyone decided it was their fault. The germans, french, italians and others badged them, locked them up in concentration camps, than did terrible experiments on them. And while this was going on, Germany managed to conquer like 4 countries in less than a year on chariots of fire.

And God wanted them to do it.

That’s far fetched, didn’t happen.

Hitler: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

Since there is no way he could have acted in God’s will, it didn’t happen.

Just because someone changes the story, it makes the person no longer real?

If I had Jesus’ miraculous powers and insider’s relationship with an almighty God, I would have helped the young Hitler to become a more talented and successful artist, like Picasso. Would that be so difficult given that I knew how to walk on water, raise the dead, and make water into wine?

When Hitler called Dr. Porche in 1933 and asked him to develop the car that became the VW Beetle, I would have helped the car to become an immediate international success, making Hitler into a European Henry Ford - rich, successful, even a philanthropist.

Say, was Henry Ford anti-Jewish? If I had Jesus’ powers I would have helped Hitler and Ford get over their racism. Instead of watching 6 million Jews and 20 million Russians being butchered, not to mention countless others, I would have come down from Heaven in the 1930’s and prevented WW2.

I would have appointed Bad Conduct to be ambassador to Japan, to make sure they had enough oil, and to talk the emperor into scrapping their military ambitions. The Japanese like baseball, and I would have helped them train a team good enough to play against the Yankees in a real World Series. The winner would get Hawaii, and exclusive rights to buy all the oil Venezuela wanted to sell.

Let’s see, Stalin . . . Dad, what should we do with Stalin? How’s about I teach him how to make water into Vodka?

Maybe I have some chance to achieve something of value, then. Thanks for the inspiration, BC. Pay no attention to unsmoked’s terribly illiterate post just prior to yours. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to drive my 5-year-old Hyundai into the ground.

Signature

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein